Climate Science Denier Ian Plimer Recruits Former Australian PM To Launch Book Targeting Children

Climate Science Denier Ian Plimer Recruits Former Australian PM To Launch Book Targeting Children

ON November 24 in Melbourne, Professor Ian Plimer launched his new book which aims to spread doubt and uncertainty on the science of climate change.

Targeting school children and teachers (at least superficially) with his book, Professor Plimer told the audience: “These children are being fed environmental propaganda and these children are too young to be fed ideology”

Not only that, but Professor Plimer, a geologist at the University of Adelaide, was actively fundraising for the IPA just last month when the Federal Government’s carbon price legislation was passed.

The executive director of the IPA John Roskam, former corporate affairs manager for mining giant Rio Tinto, is on the editorial board of the book’s publisher, Connor Court.

During his 20-minute launch speech on YouTube, Professor Plimer criticised climate scientists for being allegedly part of a “political movement”. Yet in virtually the next breath, he told the audience “one of the aims of this book is to maintain the rage, because we have an election coming.”

So much for spreading ideology and taking the politics out of science?

Since that late November gathering, Professor Plimer has managed to fit in a trip to the UK to speak at a debate in London hosted by a group called Repeal The Act. The aim of the debate was to encourage people to sign a petition calling for the repeal of the UK Parliament’s Climate Change Act.

The group boasts as its patron Professor Bob Carter, the IPA’s science policy advisor and another Australian climate science “skeptic”.

Plimer is also on the advisory committee of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank chaired by former UK chancellor Lord Nigel Lawson and which has much in common with the IPA.

Both groups aim to spread doubt and confusion on the science of climate change and the efficacy of renewable energy and both have recruited Professor Carter and Professor Plimer as speakers and advisors.

Neither of them are prepared to reveal any details about their funders. Professor Plimer and Professor Carter are also advisors to the Australian Climate Science Coalition and the Galileo Movement – two other climate science denial “think-tanks” which exist entirely to attack climate science and oppose regulation on greenhouse gases.

A recent “research” paper from the GWPF criticizing the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change contained a foreword from former Australian Prime Minister John Howard, in which he described climate change campaigners as “zealots”.

On Monday evening this week, Mr Howard was the star attraction at the Sydney launch of Professor Plimer’s book at the Sydney Mining Club. The IPA was again a supporter, as it will be for the launch in Brisbane later this month.

Mr Howard said he was an “agnostic” on climate science and displayed an odd paranoia of the “left” when he said: “The progressive left has got their grip on the commanding heights of education instruction in this country.”

When Mr Howard uses the term “agnostic” what he’s actually saying is that he isn’t able to accept the multiple lines of evidence contained in the decades worth of climate science published in journals across the world and backed by every major science academy on the planet that excessive burning of fossil fuels will very likely be bad.

Despite Mr Howard’s enthusiasm for the new book and its author, Professor Plimer has never actually had any research published on climate change in a peer-reviewed journal.
When he published his last book – Heaven and Earth – it was roundly and forcefully dismissed by actual climate scientists as being riddled with misrepresentations and errors of fact.

Scientists have begun responding in much the same way to his new book (despite ordering the book myself more than a week ago, my order appears to have fallen into a black hole), by pointing out its errors and one-sided ideologically driven narrative.

Review copies for the ABC and Fairfax newspapers have not fallen into a black hole, however. Rather, Professor Plimer revealed in his Melbourne speech that the publisher Connor Court had refused to send them any review copies.

Media coverage so far has been relatively soft and unchallenging, with the ABC’s Radio National AM show failing to balance any of the views of Professor Plimer, Mr Howard or the receptive audience in the room of the miners’ club.

Plimer is among friends at mining venues. He is a director of mining companies Ivanhoe Australia, Silver City Minerals and the UK-listed Kefi Minerals, and is chairman of TNT Mines (he enjoyed remuneration of at least $140,000 from these companies and holds shares worth about $200,000). He resigned in November as a director of coal seam gas explorer Ormil Energy, even though he is still listed as a director on the company’s website.

These associations don’t tend to get a mention in media coverage and I doubt it’s in the author’s biography of his new book either (but I might be wrong).

But the contents of his Melbourne speech do reveal the same tired and long-debunked arguments that scientists diligently tore to shreds in 2009 when his previous book was published.

Professor Plimer claims that the climate has always changed (which it has) and that CO2 is a trace gas (which it is, but is accumulating in the atmosphere thanks to human activity) that couldn’t possibly affect the climate (which it can, and does).

A recent analysis of Professor Plimer’s statements at the science-based website Skeptical Science – titled Plimer vs Plimer – shows how consistently he contradicts even his own statements.

At the Melbourne launch, for example, Professor Plimer said that there’s no relationship between carbon dioxide and global warming. He makes the same statement in his book Heaven and Earth on page 278, but then on page 411, he says “Together with water vapour, CO2 keeps our planet warm so that it is not covered in ice, too hot or devoid of liquid water.”

If Professor Plimer is aiming to target school children and families with his new book, then he’s also attune to the provocative and cynical nature of his pitch.

The book will in all likelihood help his followers and his fellow free-market ideologues to “maintain the rage” and their climate science denial – even if it is maintained on debunked science.

Previous Comments

ABCAM might have gone easy on him, but Matt Peacock gave him no easy ride whatsoever. He had Plimer completely flustered & on the ropes.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3390224.htm

Listen to Plimer pulling out all the favourite denier tactics. Kids need to be re-educated….according to fossil fuel perspectives. If you ask him the hard questions like why he defends asbestos, when all the rest of the worlds scientists say asbestos kills, you are called an ideologue. Sound familiar?

Plimer is used to more royal treatment like that of the Murdoch press or the IPA where no questions are asked whatsoever. Don’t dare ask any hard questions, or you are a commie.

What an overbearing and arrogant creature this Plimer is, ‘...you are just a journalist…you are out of your depth…it certainly goes to your credibility…’. In over-talking Peacock he displays a Gish Gallop of staggeringly obnoxious, offensive proportions shot through with hypocrisy. This creature, or his works, should not be allowed anywhere near children

The hypocrisy displayed in Plimer’s assertion:

‘These kids coming out today have the lack of basics of chemistry, physics, mathematics, logic and English’

is breathtaking.

Any seat of learning that is associated with this creature should be thoroughly ashamed. What little credibility Plimer may have had clinging to him has now gone. Sunk by his own offensive attitude and the downright discombobulation displayed in this exchange.

Ian Plimmer once again goes beyond the call of duty and is now donating his time to educate children in need. No matter what your opinion you can not object to children receiving both sides of the story. School is not to teach you what to think but rather how to think. At least it used to be.

@RalphNader: “No matter what your opinion you can not object to children receiving both sides of the story.”

Tell you what, RalphNader, I’ll agree with you if you’ll agree that the other side of the story is that of a propaganda campaign run to protect vested interests in the fossil fuel industry. Given how effective that has been, I think it is very important that children are made aware of such tactics from an early age. They should also be taught science.

‘No matter what your opinion you can not object to children receiving both sides of the story.’

As if Plimer would present both sides, forsooth.

Plimer was once a scientist but is now an ideologically (if only by worshipping the gods of money and fame) compromised obfuscater and thus unlikely to recognise that to his side belongs deceptions, half-truths and even downright lies (volcanoes and CO2 being an example).

Plimer, has clearly lost the ability to think rationally so how can he be qualified to teach children anything.

That interview cited show Plimer to be a very bad example in presenting argument. Balance is not achieved by talking the other down.

“No matter what your opinion you can not object to children receiving both sides of the story.”

Yeah it’s a real dilemma Ralph. When kids are taught about the moon landing, should they be taught the both sides, like the conspiracy theorists side about how it was faked. Or in history lessons about the Nazi’s, or the Khmer Rouge, we should hear the other side of the story from extreme right & left wing sympathizers of these regimes? Or when they discuss vaccines, the kids should be taught the other side of the story by chiropractors & homeopaths. Science lessons with intelligent design. The fast food industry could give their balanced views during physical education classes, so that they are not held in a biased or unreasonable light.

Kids are not being taught environmental activism. They are being taught science that was well established before conservative or progressive parties were even formed. Let alone environmentalists. Science that the entire planets scientific institutes agree with. Science that easily debunks the wives tale myths of the handful of fossil fuel paid industry scientists.

Just once in these interviews, I’d like to hear the interviewer ask people like Plimer when they pull out the ol ideology card, is why there are conservative governments around the world that not only support the factual science, but have carbon policies? If it’s entirely a hoax manufactured by environmental activists & politicized, then why are conservatives involved?

There’s a government out there reducing carbon In a meaningful and permanent way? Doubt it. Gov austerity programs and green initiatives only last as long as they can stand the pain. It’s always just a mirage.

Many countries are down about 1 ton per capita from their peak including Germany, the US and even evil Canada. hmmm what happened in the last few years to bring about this carbon miracle?. Could it be the recession? Are these drop off’s in CO2 production just because of economic downtimes. Is the Euro zones economic destabilization reducing Germanies carbon footprint?

Since the hottest year on record is over a decade ago, you will see schools seeking scientific explanations outside the sthephen Schneider version of AGW. Compelling scientists like Ian Plimmer will likely be in very high demand, unless we seem some global warming which has been ona vacation now supposedly in the deep oceans or hiding within chinese aerosols.

Even if 1998 was the hottest on record, 2005 and 2010 were statistical ties with it or beat it in some data sets. Not that it matters, since anyone paying attention knows that one year’s temperature has very little to do with the general warming trend. There are always outliers like 1998, which was helped by the biggest El Nino in 100 years, which warms the atmosphere.

There is a new paper by Grant Foster and Stefan Rahmstorf that reconstructs several temp data sets and removes all or most of the noise of short term variability, ENSO, etc. and comes up with 2009 and 2010 being the biggest anomolies. In other words, that’s the signal of the warming, standing out from the noise.

@sailrick: “I said nothing of the kind, not did anyone else. If you can’t follow the conversations because you are not well informed, don’t blame me.”

I was addressing RalphNader, but I’ll take you on as well sailrick, as you’ve butted in. Now see if you can follow the logic.

RalphNader wrote “If c02 was a powerful driver of temperature you would see record breaking years virtually every year for every data set”. However there are other drivers of temperature, such as El Nino, El Nina and sun cycles, which superimpose on the underlying effect of greenhouse gases. So, can you see why CO2 can be a powerful driver of temperature, yet not cause record breaking years virtually every year for every data set?

That’ll be why RalphNader didn’t respond, because he never does when he knows he’s beaten.

You maybe a wannabe climate scientist, however, you must realise that 13 years isn’t statistically significant. Climate is defined over 30 years.

This must be one of the goofiest statement I have seen to date “climate is defined over 30 years” Yes in a 5+ billion year old planet the climate is defined over 30 years. Truth be know we have not to date collected an accurate temperature sample to make prognostications about the climate with out 150 year data set.

The point remains though that if c02 is a powerful driver of climate and you increase the c02 and the temperature does not increase accordingly, obviously c02 is an almost irrelevant factor. Even Ian Forrester will admitt that this effectively nullifies the theory.

“This must be one of the goofiest statement I have seen to date “climate is defined over 30 years” Yes in a 5+ billion year old planet the climate is defined over 30 years.”

Who looks foolish now? Seems that despite believing you should be a climatologist, your knowledge is not up to scratch.

What is Climate?
Climate in a narrow sense is usually defined as the “average weather,” or more rigorously, as the statistical description in terms of the mean and variability of relevant quantities over a period of time ranging from months to thousands or millions of years. The classical period is 30 years, as defined by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO). These quantities are most often surface variables such as temperature, precipitation, and wind. Climate in a wider sense is the state, including a statistical description, of the climate system. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/faqs.html

What happened to your unsubstantiated peer-reviewed claim? I notice you’ve gone quiet over that. Did you get another idiot to read it?

I clicked on the link Nader provided and it linked to a nasty looking pay to see site. Who knows what junk may be getting downloaded onto peoples’ computers from this worthless site.

It is time that the moderators of this site do a cleansing and remove all the junk put out by a few paid for trolls who are certainly keeping many intelligent and honest people from participating in this site. I do not want to waste my time on a site which appears to be taken over by these trolls.

The articles are good but the signal to noise ratio provided by these trolls makes it a worthless site to visit these days.

“I don’t know what motivates Plimer but I see he’s charging $30. for his book. I guess at that price he expects some good sales numbers.”

Well he sold 15,000 copies of Heaven & Earth, so that’s a lot of kool aid out there on peoples bookshelves. I wish Plimer would stick to what he is good at & that’s debating creationists. At least he comes up with plausible questions in that arena. He has even been on the receiving end of the gish gallop founder Duane Gish himself. The famous technique that Monckton decided to employ in order to swamp his oppositions with too many questions or statements to answer within the time constrained debates he engages in.

No, the real enemy of mankind is people like you and RalphNader, wilfully using propaganda techniques to spread doubt about established science, and never conceding when you’ve been proven to be wrong with your zombie arguments. Here’s one consequence of the decades of inaction that you deniers have caused:

Russian research team astonished after finding ‘fountains’ of methane bubbling to surface:

oh yeah - the worlds about to melt but it’s not the fault of China and India as they ramp up carbon and theres no responsibility to be had by do nothing fake activists crying crocodile tears, while they continue to enjoy western carbonated opulence. No lets blame a few anonymous people on the internet who are unconvinced about our ability to change the climate. Yep - that makes perfect sense.

China and India have only been major contributors to C02 emissions for the past 20-30 years. Western Europe and North America have been major contributors for over 100 years.

More than 80% of the existing C02 emissions in the atmosphere is not from India or China or any third world country. Western Europe and North America need to take responsibility for the bulk of AGW to date, and lead by example.

“China and India have only been major contributors to C02 emissions for the past 20-30 years. Western Europe and North America have been major contributors for over 100 years”

Exactly. We might have separate countries, languages, customs & cultures. But the world economy is globalized now & manufacturing, as pointed out has essentially been outsourced to developing countries. While many western countries become service based economies. The emissions, whether created in China, India or at home, are still our emissions, generated by us. The blame lies with us mostly.

Or China and the rest could throw on a stiff export tax to end the supply of ultra cheap consumer goods they are sending us.

looking at it that way you could say the western world has a defacto carbon tax in place - the high cost of production of goods - a tax that asia is subverting with their low priced goods that are flooding the world.

Margaret Thatcher origionally employed the AGW political tactic to hammer coal miner unions in britain very effectively I might add. Various governments will use the AGW scheme to achieve macro political objectives. All throughout europe they we’re vulnerable to russian natural gas and blackmailed politically, as a result they are very keen to find alternative domestic energy supplies. AGW is a good reason to motivate the left into accepting an attack on the incomes of the poor and the middle class they might otherwise oppose. Generally countries without fossil fuels will support AGW those with fossil fuels will oppose.

In reality everyone knows it is not a serious issue but a political tool to be wielded. Over the coming years as proof of this look to Britain to start backing off of the AGW bandwagon as they have discovered massive shale gas deposits. As more and more countries start to discover extractable shale oil and gas deposits look to them to back away as well. Shale Oil and gas is the next gold rush of economic growth in the western world.

To tin pot dictatorships AGW is simply another way to get handouts from the west.

This is a quick and dirty outline of the politics, just do not let yourself be fooled into thinking AGW is an issue with any basis in science. It has an always will remain an issue not to be worried about outside of geo politics.

No she didn’t! Thatcher used the full force of the state to defeat a strike by miners in fear of losing their jobs. This was in revenge for the NUM having brought down the Heath government in the their 1974 strike. AGW had absolutely nothing to do with it.

You are completely shameless in the way you distort any facts to suit your agenda. Who’s paying you to behave so reprehensibly?

You might add but you are so, so wrong. Thatcher’s target was the Unions and in particular the NUM. You and Plimer are bird’s of a feather.

I, and in the UK at that, lived through both the downfall of the Heath government ‘The Winter of Discontent’ and then Thatcher’s blitz, using agents provoacteur on the striking miners. The violence was establishment inspired.

“All available evidence indicates that man-made global warming is a physical impossibility”

Of course, he doesn’t cite any available evidence for that, or for anything else he opines about. You’re a soft touch if you think that’s a good history of anything, and you forgot to mention that it’s by the Technical Editor for the journal of the international coal trading industry.

Ralph, I knew you would seek to avoid that question & you artfully did so. Politician in the making. Speaking without answering anything to do with my question. This is the 10 foot pole department for conservatives such as yourself & Rick that constantly attempt to paint AGW as an entirely politically constructed hoax. Having to address the conservatives that support AGW destroys your paradigm & you know it. It makes it so much harder to pin the blame on Al Gore & make it a thing of the left. Hence your avoidance. It’s also a question that is never raised at WUWT, Audit, Depot, Hill, Nova etc.

“Generally countries without fossil fuels will support AGW those with fossil fuels will oppose.”

Finally! You spoke the truth about something. Freudian slip? That one statement gets to the nexus of why there is so much opposition in Australia, Canada & the USA& why there are so many globally active lobby groups & their henchmen like Plimer, Singer, Ball, Carter etc. Countries without fossil fuels (conservative run countries included) without massive fossil fuel reserves are free to accept the science without fossil fuel companies & lobbyists offering rivers of gold to deny it. Your statement proves the opposition to the theory of AGW in these countries has nothing to do with the science & everything to do with money. And why “online communication associates” (paid trolls) like yourself, must tow the line no matter how ludicrous the defense seems.

“In reality everyone knows it is not a serious issue but a political tool to be wielded.”

So what sort of politics are the conservatives in Germany &NZ playing by accepting the science? I thought it was a hoax & invention of the left? Why are Conservative governments involved? Are they environmental activists or secretly enthralled to them?

I think you are almost getting it. New zealand and germany have no fossil fuel reserves, so they must conjur up demons to convince there population to use domestic resources to gain energy independance, politically AGW makes sense for them. They pervert the science with political messaging to promote there ideological objectives. Free from spin the climate science speaks for itself. Looking at climate science objectively it says.

1. Global warming is not a big deal

2. If anything the mild warming will be beneficial to mankind as it was during the MWP

Thats why we don’t see any warming in the past 15 years, it’s a non issue scientifically. Politically though it is a very valuable tool to promote collectivism and increase taxes to grow bloated bureacracies as well to promote a green adgenda. You hear it all the time how even if AGW is false the peripheral benefits are worth it.

Straightshooters like myself and Ian Plimmer just want to get the truth out there free from political bias.

Phil, you asked that question before. I believe the answer may be that there is no such thing as a conservative government. There are governments that use the conservative label and may have a few conservative inclinations, but overall they are not conservative.

They are big and growing, power centralizing enterprises.

A notion that resonates with conservatives is Reagans line that “Government is the Problem”

“I believe the answer may be that there is no such thing as a conservative government. There are governments that use the conservative label and may have a few conservative inclinations, but overall they are not conservative.”

Well, you are probably right there. Although Europeans conservatives seem to follow principles more closely aligned with conservative values & ideals. Conservative parties in Australia, Canada & the USA appear to be more right wing now than anything. It’s semantics really. They still define themselves as conservative parties.

Anyways……we digress. What do you think about my question?

“If AGW is just a politicized hoax invented & perpetuated by the left. Then why are there conservative governments involved & have been for decades?”

You have previously gone on record to say:

“I think what happened is that the greens from the 70s were desperately looking for an issue that would grab public attention. They had “save the trees” and “save the whales” etc but those things had limited appeal.

Climate change tied to emissions gave them a new issue and they grabbed on.

The thing is those greens were leftists to the core and that was their main motivation and so climate change became a political issue. It became something with which they could battle and demonize the right. The right fought back because that’s what happens in a political battle.

So we have a political battle instead of an environmental/economic discussion. Blame the leftist tree huggers.”

Why are the conservatives involved then Rick? Conservatives such as yourself , Ralph, Chas, Chris, Lara etc are keen to constantly position AGW as a hoax create by the left. How does conservatives being involved from the beginning fit that paradigm?

Most of this involves politians holding up a finger to see which way the wind is blowing.

The AGW movement obviously got some serious traction for a while resulting in Kyoto. But things have slipped since then generally allowing politicians to talk about talking rather than feel they had to step in with commitments.

You have to understand that conservative politicians are politicians first. They adjust according to which way the wind seems to be blowing this week.

Romney and Gingrich are prime examples. Most likely one of them will be the republican nominee and they both have their fingers to the wind and have distanced themselves from AGW. Sarah Palin on the other hand showed more principle when she took that stance when it was less popular. She’s either more principled or maybe just less observant in noting which way the wind is blowing.

“Most of this involves politians holding up a finger to see which way the wind is blowing.”

Poll driven policy is a separate issue. We all know that most political parties are now beholden to the various newspaper, phone & online polls. It’s pathetic & both sides do it. It’s unfortunate because it essentially means that certain media are dictating policy through these polls.

Gone are the days when they listened to protests on the street. The numbers would have to be pretty immense to make a change now. There is now the 24hr news cycle to beware of.

Poll driven policy is one side of it. But the funders are the other side. Who knows when it started, the begriming of the 21st century perhaps? But both sides do it, resulting in policy being created not in the publics interest…but vested interests.

The same bullshit is trotted out by both sides each election cycle ad nauseam, like no one remembered the theme from the year before.

E.g. Create jobs! Good for families, boost or fix for education. Fix the roads, the transport, the health system, the economy. Pay down debt. Make our country safe! Protect our values that we hold dear & preserve our way of life in this great country! *projectile vomit *.

The real policy however is formulated & created by lobbyists through the industries & organizations they represent. While both sides are guilty of taking fossil fuel funds, a disproportionate amount is taken by conservative parties. As Ralph plainly states:

“Generally countries without fossil fuels will support AGW those with fossil fuels will oppose.”

It takes either a lack of fossil fuels or enormous political will for a political party to knock back that pot of gold & do the right thing on behalf of their citizens & the global community at large in which we are now so inextricably part of.

That said & keeping Ralph’s admission in mind. Who do you suppose conservative led governments in Germany &NZ are backing science & ignoring the economic alarmist warnings deniers have claimed would happen. ? Clearly, those warnings didn’t bear any fruit. If AGW was a left created hoax, then why would right leaning governments associate themselves with such beliefs? It’s obviously not a creature of the left.

By all appearances, governments in countries progressive or conservative that have accepted the science & have created policy based on world expert advice are doing what they were supposed to do all along. Developing policy in their publics interest at a local level & their species at a global level. Their job.

Nice one. If Plimer can’t get something right (asbestos) that is part of his own field of science……..then how can he be believed when it comes to a field of study that he has no expertise in & has published no papers in? Reminds me of Lindzen & Singers defense of smoking.

Plimer’s credibility continues to crumble. He has joined the depths of denial inhabited by Fred Singer in AGW denial and denial of the dangers of asbestos.

http://www.desmogblog.com/tags/dr-s-fred-singer-0

Plimer is also incredibly arrogant. Much like he was when he encountered George Monbiot and repeated his drivel about volcanoes and was publicly humiliated on Lateline [I believe this is an ABC programme]

“….MATTPEACOCK: Professor in 2008 you wrote to me that… excuse me, can I ask you this question? In 2008 you wrote to me and you said chrysotile is not a carcinogen. Do you still stand by that view?

IANPLIMER: The literature now has changed. There has been some more work done. Now there happened to be three years of scientific work done between 2008 and 2010…

MATTPEACOCK: And in 2008 the WHO (World Health Organisation) said it was a carcinogen, so did medical authorities throughout the world but you said it wasn’t.

IANPLIMER: No, I’m sorry. It was equivocal. It is probably less equivocal now. And again you are allowing ideology to actually overrun your logic…

MATTPEACOCK: And you’re saying in 2008, Professor, that asbestos was not viewed as a carcinogen? ….

MATTPEACOCK: How could a geologist such as yourself say that chrysotile is not a carcinogen?

IANPLIMER: …you are trying to claim that mineral chrysotile is an asbestos mineral when you know full well that it isn’t. And it is no wonder that people have lost faith in the ABC because you know very well…

MATTPEACOCK: And the entire industry in Canada, the town of Asbestos that mines chrysotile, they’ve all got it wrong? …..”

Plimers video is really good, if the book is anything like the youtube link we are looking at a best seller. Essentially he just arms children with common sense to debunk the AGW myth. Keep up the good work Dr. Plimer, the world appreciates your efforts.

“Keep up the good work Dr. Plimer, the world appreciates your efforts.”

Only dishonest people such as Nader and other trolls support Plimer. He is telling lies about chrysotile. It is asbestos and has been known to be carcinogenic for many years.

“Chrysotile Asbestos
Fact #1: Asbestos is a regulated carcinogen.
Fact #2: There are 6 fibrous minerals that are currently regulated as “asbestos:”
chrysotile, amosite, crocidolite, tremolite, actinolite and anthophyllite
Fact #3: Chrysotile is the most common variety of asbestos found in products in the United States.
- It is the most abundant asbestos variety on earth.
Fact #4: Chrysotile asbestos has been a significant contributor to asbestos-related illness and death to the US and worldwide workforce.
Fact #5: There is sufficient evidence to conclude that ALLFORMS of asbestos, including chrysotile, are carcinogenic and are responsible for asbestos-related lung cancer, mesothelioma, laryngeal and ovarian cancers”.

That he agrees with the lies from Plimer says a lot about Nader. That they both deny that chrysotile is a danger to human health shows the depths to which AGW deniers will go. And to think that this liar is pushing his nonsense and misinformation to school kids is deplorable.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.